Woody Allen Testifies In Misconduct Case

NEW HAVEN — Woody Allen took the witness stand for the first time Thursday in his misconduct case against a popular Litchfield County prosecutor.

Wearing his hallmark dark- framed glasses, Allen testified for more than an hour in Superior Court before a three-member panel of the Statewide Grievance Committee. The board has authority over the licensing of state lawyers.

The committee is hearing arguments on Allen's claim that Litchfield County State's Attorney Frank Maco violated a legal code of conduct in 1993 when he announced he had cause to prosecute Allen even though he decided not to arrest him. In a press conference at the time, Maco explained he meant to spare Allen's daughter, Dylan, then 8 years old, from the rigors of a criminal trial.

Allen answered questions from James Wade, attorney for Maco. The actor/director spoke in quiet tones, without the anger that marked so many of his public pronouncements relating to his domestic wrangling with movie star Mia Farrow, his former lover.

Maco, Allen's attorneys claim, left a cloud hanging over Allen while denying him a forum -- a trial -- to clear his name. In defense of his actions, Maco says widely publicized comments Allen and his attorneys made demanded a public response. He worried his decision not to prosecute might send a message to parents that they wouldn't be believed and that Maco's office wouldn't be receptive to child abuse complaints.

Allen's expert witness, Stephen Gillers, a New York University legal ethics professor, testified that he believes Maco has a responsibility to explain to the public what he is doing. ``People have a right to know how government is functioning. It's just good government.'' In June, Gillers had testified he believed Maco had violated the code of conduct by referring to Allen's behavior as ``grossly inappropriate.''

On the stand Thursday, in response to Wade's questioning about his public posture in the abuse complaint, Allen said he tried his best to avoid mobs of reporters. He conceded, though, there were times he did answer questions -- once at a press conference he called to address the news he was under criminal investigation in Connecticut and again in New Haven after Yale doctors concluded Dylan's allegations were fantasies.

``My press agent said she was being inundated by reports that police were going to investigate me,'' Allen said, explaining why he rented a ballroom at Manhattan's Plaza Hotel. ``The decision was made I should say something about it because it was already breaking in newspapers that I was the target of an investigation for molesting my child.''

Allen said he wrote his own statement in which he called the allegations rumors, innuendos and cruel untruths. He accused Farrow of making the accusations ``hysterically.''

``The motive here is to get Frank Maco to back off,'' Wade said to the grievance panel. ``If it appears a world-famous movie maker can hold a press conference and intimidate a prosecutor to back off,'' he added, then Litchfield County residents may have less faith Maco's office will prosecute other allegations of child molestation.

Under questioning by Wade, Allen testified that Yale doctors suggested that he and Farrow end their public squabbling for the sake of their children. ``I agreed to it. I offered Ms. Farrow to drop everything . . . I offered to give her a more than 50 percent settlement and at that moment we would drop all rancor and encourage affection for the other parent.''

But Farrow ``stormed out'' because she was ``outraged'' by the doctor's conclusions, Allen said. ``I was discouraged.''

Outside Yale, Allen spoke to reporters because ``I had been smeared all over these magazines as an alleged child abuser. I told them I was not a child molester.''

After going through what he called a ``nightmarish experience,'' Allen said, he was ``happy to end the public debate.'' He conceded, though, that he did then call Farrow ``very, very vindictive.''